1. Suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction regarding land allegedly acquired by the State under the Land Acquisition Act. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 409
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.K. Agrawal, Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.
Sri Y.P. Sudhanva Reddy & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Chairman and Managing Director, Karnataka Milk Federation Etc. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 4412-4413 of 2018 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.28437-28438 of 2015]
Decided On : 25-04-2018
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :- Anil Kumar Mishra-I, Adv.
For the Respondents:- Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, Adv.
For the Appellants :- Anil Kumar Mishra-I, Adv.
For the Respondents:- Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, Adv.
Important Points
Once land is acquired by the State under the Land Acquisition Act and possession is taken under Section 16, the land vests absolutely in the State, free from all encumbrances. The original owner loses all rights, title, and interest, rendering subsequent claims for ownership misconceived.
Subject
Land Acquisition - Acquisition of Land by State
Act Referred
Headnote
(a) Property law – Appellant filing suit for declaration of their title over suit land and permanent injunction against respondents in respect of suit land claimed to be their property – Suit land acquired in 1941 – Notifications u/s 4, 6 and award u/s 11 and 18 determined and paid – Land vesting in the State free of all encumbrances – Acquisition not challenged – Two suits file by appellants misconceived and not maintainable. (Para 21, 22, 23, 25)
(b) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XLI Rule 27-A – Documents of acquisition proceedings filed by way of additional evidence – First appellate court has jurisdiction to allow parties to file additional evidence – Documents filed by respondents being public documents not required to be proved – Foundation already laid in pleadings for these documents – Respondents satisfactorily explaining why these documents were not filed in the suit and why they are filed in the appeal – Held, High Court rightly exercised its jurisdiction under Order XLI Rule 27-A. (Para 28)
Facts of the case:
One Mr. K.G. Yellappa Reddy was the original holder of the suit land. In the year 1998, K.G. Yellappa Reddy filed a civil suit against the respondent for permanent injunction in relation to the suit land. He claimed, inter alia, that he is in possession of the suit land and the respondent is trying to interfere in his possession.
The suit was, however, dismissed as being not maintainable for want of notice.
On 14.03.2007, the appellants filed another civil suit (No.2143/2007) against the respondent for a declaration and permanent injunction in relation to the suit land.
The Trial Court though dismissed the suit as being barred by limitation but held the appellants to be the owner of the suit land.
The appellants filed first appeal in the High Court whereas the respondent filed cross objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of Code. The respondent also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code in the appeal and filed copy of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act by the State by which the State had acquired the suit land in support of their case.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants, allowed the application filed by the respondent under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code and also the cross objection filed by the respondent and dismissed the appellants' suit.
Finding of the Court:
Upon acquisition land vests in the State free from all encumbrances. Landowners cease to have any right, title and interest in the acquired land.
Under Order XLI Rule 27-A, CPC First appellate court has jurisdiction to allow parties to file additional evidence.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Plaintiffs claim title by inheritance; Defendant asserts the land was acquired by the State and allotted to them, and the suit is barred by res judicata. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 27 )
3. Land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act vests absolutely in the State, extinguishing the previous owner's rights unless the acquisition is legally challenged. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 26 )
4. Completion of acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act vests ownership in the State, extinguishing all prior rights, title, and interest of the original owner. (Para 20 , 21 , 23 )
5. Appeals dismissed, upholding the High Court's decision to dismiss the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. (Para 17 , 30 , 31 )
6. What is the legal effect of the completion of land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act?
Once the process—including notification, declaration, award, and taking possession—is complete, the land vests absolutely in the State, free from all encumbrances, and the previous owner ceases to have any right, title, or interest in the land. (Para 20 , 21 , 23 )
7. What are the available legal remedies for a landowner whose land has been acquired by the State?
The landowner may challenge the legality and correctness of the notifications issued under the Act within a reasonable time or claim compensation under Section 11, followed by reference proceedings under Section 18 and subsequent appeals. (Para 22 , 23 )
8. Under what conditions can a first appellate court allow additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
Additional evidence may be allowed if the documents are relevant and necessary for deciding the rights of the parties, are public documents, were referenced in pleadings, and the party provides a satisfactory explanation for not filing them during the trial. (Para 28 )
JUDGMENT
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
Leave granted.
2. These appeals are filed against the final judgment and order dated 16.12.2014 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Regular First Appeal No. 2096 of 2012 C/W RFA. CROB. No. 27 of 2013 whereby the High Court dismissed the Regular First Appeal filed by the appellants herein and allowed the CROB. No.27 of 2013 and the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") filed by the Respondent and set aside the findings recorded by the Trial Court on Issue No.1 that the appellants (plaintiffs) are the absolute owners of the Schedule 'A' and "B' property.
3. In order to appreciate the issue involved in the appeals, few relevant facts need to be mentioned infra.
4. The appellants are the plaintiffs whereas the respondent is the defendant in a civil suit out of which these appeals arise.
5. The disputes in the civil suit out of which these appeals arise relate to a land bearing Sy. No.2/1, Koramangala Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk measuring 1 acre 27 guntas (hereinafter referred to as "suit land"). It is between the appellants (plaintiffs) and the respondent (defendant) which is a Co-operative Society engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of Milk.
6. One Mr. K.G. Yellappa Reddy was the original holder of the suit land. In the year 1998, K.G. Yellappa Reddy filed a civil suit (OS No. 4875/1998) against the respondent for permanent injunction in relation to the suit land. He claimed, inter alia, that he is in possession of the suit land and the respondent is trying to interfere in his possession.
7. The suit was, however, dismissed as being not maintainable on 17.02.2001 by the Trial Court for want of notice. Mr. K.G. Yellappa Reddy, in the meantime, died leaving behind the appellants herein as his legal representatives.
8. On 14.03.2007, the appellants filed another civil suit (No.2143/2007) against the respondent before the City Civil Judge, Bangalore for a declaration and permanent injunction in relation to the suit land.
9. In the suit, the appellants claimed title through their ancestor (late K.G. Yellappa Reddy) and alleged that the appellants are now the owners of the suit land after the death of Mr. K.G. Yellappa Reddy by inheritance and the respondent has no right, title and interest in the suit land and nor has any right to interfere in the possession of the appellants over the suit land.
10. The respondent (defendant) denied the appellants' claim and, inter alia, alleged in the written statement that they have been in possession of the suit land in their own rights. It was alleged that the State Government acquired the suit land a long back for public purpose and allotted the suit land to the respondent for a valuable consideration and since then they are in possession of the suit land in their own right and carrying on their business.
11. The respondent also contended that the suit filed by the appellants is barred by the principle of res judicata because of the dismissal of the previous suit filed by their father (Mr. K.G. Yellappa Reddy) against the respondent in relation to the suit land wherein the same relief was claimed but was declined to the appellants' late father. The respondent also raised other legal pleas, such as suit is barred by limitation, it is neither properly valued and nor proper Court Fees has been paid on the relief claimed etc.
12. The Trial Court, by judgment/decree dated 13.08.2012, though dismissed the suit as being barred by limitation but held the appellants to be the owner of the suit land. In other words, the Trial Court held that the appellants were able to prove their ownership over the suit land but dismissed the suit as being barred by limitation. It was also held that the respondents failed to prove their case inasmuch as they failed to file any document in support of their stand that the suit land had been acquired by t
